The Rio Bravo Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project is a forestry project located in northwest Belize,
adjacent to the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (RBCMA). The project combines land acquisition
and a sustainable forestry program to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits from forest growth (i.e.,
carbon sequestration) that would not have occurred in the absence of project activities. The objective of
the project is to demonstrate an optimal balance between cost-effective carbon sequestration, economically
sustainable forest yield, and environmental protection.

In and adjacent to the eastern portion of the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (RBCMA) in
northwest Belize

Key Dates and Current Stage of Project

Project starting date (month/year)

January 1995

Project ending date (month/year)

December 2034

Project lifetime (years)

40

Current stage of project

In progress

General Project Description and Technical Data

This project combines land acquisition and a sustainable forestry program to achieve carbon dioxide
mitigation. The objective of the project is to demonstrate an optimal balance between
cost-effective carbon sequestration, economically sustainable forest yield, and environmental
protection. The project is located in and adjacent to the eastern portion of the RBCMA, which
comprises about 97,181 hectares (ha) of land in northwest Belize. In the west, the RBCMA extends
along the Guatemalan frontier and is contiguous with the Rio Azul National Park in the Maya
Biosphere Reserve. The RBCMA is separated from Mexico to the north by 5 km.

The project has two components: (A) purchase of a parcel of endangered forest land, and (B)
development of a sustainable forestry management program. Under Component A of the project, a
5,602-ha parcel of endangered forest land has been purchased to protect it from conversion to
farmland. Component B will establish and implement an economically sustainable forest management
program on the purchased land and the eastern portion of the RBCMA (a combined total of more than
52,008 ha) to increase the level and rate of carbon sequestration on these lands. This program will
include sustainable logging and pine stocking enhancement, and will provide active protection
against incursion and uncontrolled fire by substituting controlled burns for annual wild fires. The
remaining RBCMA lands will be left undisturbed for conservation and research purposes. These lands
will be managed as protected forest, as will those portions of land under Component B that are
designated for preservation. The biomass characteristics of the project land as well as land
management, policy, technological, and socioeconomic factors will be monitored to measure and
verify project results.

6. Cost

(a) Explanation of methodology for calculating cost data

Methodology for Calculating Cost Data

In the proposal, the project developer provided a preliminary cost estimate of US$2.5 million for
implementation of this project, and reported that the period of investment would be ten years,
after which the project would be self-sufficient. The itemization of costs totaling US$2.5 million
is provided below.

As of this writing, the cost estimate for project implementation had increased to US$2.6 million to
be invested over a ten-year period. The provisional budget allows for partial recovery of project
development costs.

(b) Cost data-Project development

This information is considered confidential by the developer and therefore is not available.

(c) Cost data-Project implementation

Annual implementation cost information is not yet available.

Itemized Project Implementation Costs

7. Monitoring and verification of AIJ project activities and results

Item

Party(ies) that will be monitoring project activities

Winrock International, Programme for Belize

Party(ies) that will be externally verifying project results

Winrock International

Date when the monitoring plan became (or will become) operational (month/year)

February 1996

Types of data that will be collected

Biomass density, biomass carbon content, biomass growth rate, tree species and age class, soil
carbon content, amount of damage per harvested tree, destination of harvested biomass and wood
waste, leakage of project benefits, area of burned land, and other gross changes in land cover,
land use, and land management. Additional monitoring protocols will be developed for public
communications, community outreach, and socioeconomic trends and impacts.

Description of Monitoring and Verification Activities and Schedule for Implementation

The monitoring protocol was developed in collaboration with Winrock International. Winrock
International is training PfB staff to conduct the monitoring activities, and will verify the
project results. The first monitoring activity, which began in February 1996, consisted of a
project baseline carbon inventory on Component A land. The sampling design consisted of stratified
systematic sampling of permanent sample plots. The strata were defined by vegetation type as
determined from satellite images, topographic maps, and observation of vegetation and soils. Strata
areas were determined using MapInfo (versions 3.0 and 4.0) and the PfB's Geographic Information
System (ArcInfo/ArcView). To determine carbon stocks under the reference case, it was assumed
maize, beans, and rain-fed rice would be planted on deforested land. Nearby agricultural lands were
used to represent the reference case. Monitoring of permanent sample plots will be done
subsequently in years 3, 5, 7, and 10 with existing project funding. All monitoring will be
conducted during the same season in each year.

For Component B land, the monitoring protocol will be used to compare the impacts of sustainable
harvesting, silviculture, and regeneration techniques (the project scenario) against the impacts of
traditional harvesting practices (the reference scenario). This monitoring will be conducted as the
various harvesting and silviculture techniques are implemented. Prevailing logging practices in a
nearby district at the time of project setup will be used to represent the reference case.
Permanent sample plots will be used for monitoring Component B land. A carbon stock survey of all
logging areas of Component B will be conducted in 1997. Future sampling rates are yet to be
determined.

For both Component A and Component B, data will be collected on aboveground biomass and necromass,
estimated belowground biomass, and soil carbon. For Component B, the amount of damage per harvested
tree (e.g., the road, skid trail, and log landing areas and the volume of coarse woody debris), the
destination of harvested biomass (e.g., the proportion of extracted timber in durable products and
the fossil-fuel substitution by wood waste), and the impact of fire suppression activities (e.g.,
actual area burned in a fire event that was suppressed by PfB crews, and estimated amount of land
that would have been burned in the absence of fire suppression activities) will also be
assessed.

The project developers will seek the Forest Stewardship Council's certification of the timber
harvesting regime and other forest management practices. Achieving such certification will
demonstrate that the project meets internationally recognized standards for sustainable management
of forest resources.

A protocol has also been developed to identify and monitor forms of potential leakage of project
benefits. This protocol focuses on identifying leakage issues that are specific to the project,
measurable, and actually occurring, and that have the potential to affect GHG emission benefits by
a factor of 20% or more.

Land-use change over the zone of secondary project impacts will be tracked from a historical
reference point of 1968 using air photography, LANDSAT, Spot, and AIRSAR. It will be updated
regularly as imagery becomes available through the Belize Ministry of Natural Resources.

The results of monitoring activities are reviewed by the Project Board and the Project Advisory
Panel. All project reports and data are available for external verification.

B. Governmental approval

Item

Please check one of the following.

This report is a first report.

or

This report is an
intermediate report.

or

This report is a final report.

Please check one of the following:

This report is a joint
report. Letter(s) of approval of this report from the designated national authority of the other
Party(ies) involved in the activity is(are) attached in Section J, Annex.

or

This report is a separate report.

Additional comments (if any):

C. Compatibility with, and supportiveness of, national economic development and socioeconomic and
environmental priorities and strategies

Compatibility with Economic Development and Socioeconomic and Environmental Priorities

In his letter to the U.S. Department of State, the Foreign Minister of Belize noted that the
Belizean Government considers the project to be "a significant step in [the] direction"
of the Government's environmental and economic development goals.

D. Environmental, social/cultural, and economic impacts of the AIJ project

Non-Greenhouse-Gas Environmental Impacts of the Project

The project was designed to have positive impacts on the area's biodiversity, wildlife habitat,
and soil stability. The project will secure a habitat for a wide range of species, including nine
mammals listed on CITES Appendix 1 or classed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act,
and over 341 bird species. The project will also maintain the integrity of the biodiversity in the
RBCMA by promoting the regeneration of a diverse range of native flora species. In addition, the
planned sustainable forestry regime, pine forest management activities, and Bajo scrub preservation
will increase the amount of ground cover and further reduce soil erosion.

The reduction in the availability of new farm land resulting from the land purchases in Component A
may trigger an increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides, which are known to have
negative impacts on water quality, as farmers seek to improve the productivity of available lands.
However, it is also likely that the project will have a positive effect on water quality by
promoting a shift in land-use patterns from the current high-input mechanized farming practices to
more sustainable land uses (e.g., sustainable forestry). Significant increases in air pollution
resulting from manufacturing durable wood products are not anticipated. Increases in forest cover
and subsequent reductions in ambient air temperatures are expected to reduce the formation of
ground-level ozone.

To reduce the environmental impact of project implementation, the Hillbank field station was
equipped with a solar power-generating system and a composting toilet. The project's
environmental impacts will be monitored on an ongoing basis, and mitigation plans will be developed
if any adverse affects are identified.

Social/Cultural Impacts of the Project

The carbon sequestration activities under Component B will be integrated into the management regime
for the broader RBCMA, which includes the protection of ancient Mayan archaeological sites.

Economic Impacts of the Project

The forest management regime developed as part of the project will enhance the commercial value of
the forest and regeneration of valuable timber, and will ensure that the forest resources are used
in a sustainable manner.

The RBCMA sustainable forestry project is labor-intensive and, thus, will improve employment in the
immediate region and add new technical capabilities to the area's labor market. A policy of
preference for hiring from local communities will be followed for all field posts and contract
work.

The sustainable forestry program will attempt to create an economically viable commercial model
that demonstrates that shifting land-use practices either from extensive agriculture to forestry,
or from unsustainable logging practices to sustainable forestry, can be economically beneficial.
Once developed and tested, the sustainable forestry management regime will be extended to
technically and economically benefit a network of community groups surrounding the RBCMA.

E. Greenhouse gas impacts of the AIJ project

1. Scenario description

Item

Site Designation

Site number (order of presentation in this report)

1 of 2

Site name/designation

Component A

Project sector

Land-use change and forestry

Reference Scenario

Primary activity(ies)

Deforestation, conversion to agricultural land

Has the reference scenario changed since the last report? (If yes, explain any changes below.)

Yes

No

This is the first project report.

Description:

Since the last report was submitted, the area of Component A land has been re-estimated due to the
identification of anomalies between the areas on land titles and the actual ground areas. As
indicated in the previous report, Component A was anticipated to involve the purchase of 6,014 ha
of forest area, consisting of 4,791 ha of broadleaf forest, 1,118 ha Bajo (seasonally inundated
scrub), and 105 ha of swamp. Without the project, 5,909 ha of forest area within the 6,014 ha of
land purchased under Component A of the project were expected to be deforested and converted to
agricultural lands within five years; the remaining 105 hectares of Component A were expected to
remain herbaceous swamp and open water.

Based on a ground survey and GIS measurements, the actual area of Component A land is estimated to
be 5,602 ha, of which 4,247 ha consist of broadleaf forest, 334 ha consist of upland forest that
was burned through in June 1995, 923 ha consist of Bajo, and 98 ha consist of herbaceous swamp and
open water. Without the project, 5,504 ha were estimated to be deforested and converted to
agricultural lands within five years; the remaining 98 hectares were expected to remain herbaceous
swamp and open water.

Once the Component A land had been purchased, it was to be placed under the sustainable forestry
management regime established as part of Component B (see site description for Component B below).
As a result, this 5,602 ha parcel of land was expected to accrue carbon benefits from both
Component A (preservation) and Component B (sustainable forestry) of the project. In order to
simplify overall calculations, carbon benefits associated with both the purchase of the 5,602 ha
parcel of land, and the subsequent implementation of the sustainable forestry management regime on
this parcel of land, were to be calculated as Component A carbon benefits.

Actual Project

Primary activity(ies)

Forest preservation, silviculture, fire management

Description:

The purchase of Component A land (5,602 ha) was completed in December 1995. This area was managed
and protected by the PfB during the year prior to purchase. As a result of the land purchase and
management efforts, no Component A land was deforested for conversion to agriculture during 1995
and 1996.

Item

Site Description

Site number (order of presentation in this report)

2 of 2

Site name/designation

Component B

Project sector

Land-use change and forestry

Reference Scenario

Primary activity(ies)

Unsustainable harvesting, uncontrolled burning of pine savannas

Has the reference scenario changed since the last report? (If yes, explain any changes below.)

Yes

No

This is the first project report.

Description:

Since the last report was submitted, the area of Component B land has been re-estimated. As
indicated in the previous report, the Component B land was estimated to consist of 44,529 ha that
were additional to those in Component A. Based on a ground survey and GIS measurements, the actual
area of Component B land (that is additional to Component A) is estimated to be 46,406 ha.

In the reference scenario, the developer makes the conservative assumption that carbon stocks on
Component B land would remain constant in the absence of the project. Since it is possible that in
the absence of the project, some or all of the Component B lands would be subject to unsustainable
harvesting-which would cause the decline of current carbon stocks in the already degraded broadleaf
forest area-as well as uncontrolled burning of pine savannas, this assumption may lead to an
underestimation of project benefits.

In the original proposal, the combined land in Component A and Component B was expected to total
50,543 ha. Of this total, 11,398 ha were anticipated to be managed as a conservation area
consisting of 3,493 ha broadleaf, 1,815 ha swamp forest, and 6,090 ha of Bajo. In addition, a
sustainable logging program was to be established on 25,866 ha of broadleaf forest. A fire control
regime was initially to be applied to 2,500 ha of pine forest, and eventually to be expanded to
10,010 ha of pine forest. The remaining 3,269 ha were to consist of herbaceous swamp and open
water.

Using the revised land area data based on the ground survey and GIS analysis, the combined land in
Component A and Component B of the project was found to total 52,008 ha. A portion of this land was
anticipated to be managed as a conservation area, and a portion to be used for a sustainable
logging program. A fire control regime was also to be implemented. The benefits associated with the
implementation of Component B on 46,406 ha (= 52,008 ha - the 5,602 ha purchased under Component A)
of the project area were calculated as Component B carbon benefits. The results of experiments in
tree regeneration, sustainable harvesting, and reduced impact logging techniques were to be used to
determine the type and extent of these activities on Component B land during the project lifetime.

In 1996, the project developers initiated a series of "patch cut" experiments to test
methods of mahogany regeneration, conducted experiments on sustainable harvesting and reduced
impact logging, and initiated a stock survey. The fire control regime was also implemented in 1996.

2. GHG emission/sequestration calculation methodology

GHG Emission/Sequestration Calculation Methodology

Site number

1 of 2

Project sector

Land-use change and forestry

Description of Calculation Methodology for the Reference Scenario

In order to simplify overall calculations, carbon benefits associated with both the purchase of the
5,602 ha parcel of land in Component A, and the subsequent implementation of the sustainable
forestry management regime on this parcel of land, are calculated as Component A carbon benefits.
The project developer indicated that all of the Component A land (5,602 ha) was purchased by the
end of December 1995. Because a forestry protection regime was established on the land purchased by
the project before 1995, reference case and project scenario emissions, and net project carbon
benefits, are calculated for the full year in 1995.

The proposal assumed that without the project, 5,909 ha of forest area within the 6,014 ha of land
expected to be purchased under Component A of the project would be deforested and converted to
agricultural lands within five years. The proposal further assumed a linear rate of conversion. The
initial carbon stocks on Component A land were estimated to be 768,480 metric tonnes (t) C, based
on relevant literature rather than site-specific stock surveys. For the first five years of the
project, the estimates of carbon stocks for any given year accounted for: (1) the loss of initial
(i.e., as of the end of 1994) biomass carbon stocks on the parcel of land deforested in that year;
(2) the loss of any additional carbon accumulated on that parcel as a result of biomass growth
prior to deforestation; (3) the accumulation of new carbon stocks from biomass growth on parcels
not yet deforested; and (4) the accumulation of carbon stocks in crops grown on deforested parcels.
Annual carbon emissions in the reference case were calculated by subtracting the carbon stock in
the year considered from the carbon stock in the previous year. The proposal estimated that net
emissions of 738,935 t C (=2,709,428 t CO2) would be generated under the reference
scenario over a five-year period.

Based on on-site assessments, the land area of Component A was determined to be 5,602 ha, of which
5,504 ha were anticipated to be deforested at a linear rate over a five-year period. The developers
conducted a biomass stock survey and sampled the soil of the Component A land, and applied biomass
and soil carbon equations to determine the carbon content of the above- and belowground biomass and
the soil. The developers determined that current carbon stocks on Component A land total 1,568,907
t C.

To develop site-specific estimates of carbon stocks under the revised reference case, the
developers assumed that maize, beans, and rain-fed rice would be planted on deforested land, and
collected data on the carbon stocks on agricultural land adjacent to the project site. The
developers assumed that soil carbon was the only stable carbon pool in cultivated fields, and did
not assess the carbon content of arable crops. The carbon stocks on an area of agricultural land
equivalent to the area of Component A were estimated to be 467,815 t C.

The difference between the carbon stocks on the Component A land and carbon stocks on the
agricultural land used to represent the end-point of the reference case was used as a measure of
cumulative carbon emissions under the reference case. Total emissions under the reference case were
therefore 1,101,093 t C (=1,568,907 t C - 467,815 t C). Annual carbon emissions over a five-year
period were therefore 220,219 t C/yr (=1,101,093 t C ÷ 5 years). To convert t C to t
CO2, the tonnes of annual carbon emissions were multiplied by the ratio of 44 t
CO2/12 t C. (Numbers as shown in the following tables may not sum to totals due to
rounding.)

Description of Calculation Methodology for the Project Scenario

As discussed above, in the proposal, the initial carbon stock of Component A forest land was
estimated to be 768,480 t C on an area of 5,909 ha. The proposal indicated that with the project,
0.96 t C/ha-yr was expected to be sequestered due to biomass growth. (The figure of 0.96 t C/ha-yr
was a weighted average based on the biomass growth rates of broadleaf forest, Bajo, and herbaceous
swamp and open water area. As indicated by the project developer, biomass growth on the project
area was only anticipated to occur during the first five years of the project.) Average annual
carbon stocks in the first five years of the project were determined by adding the average annual
biomass growth to the carbon stock in the previous year. Carbon stocks were expected to remain
constant after 2000 because biomass growth on Component A forest was anticipated to cease in that
year. Annual carbon sequestration in the project scenario was calculated by subtracting the carbon
stock in a given year from the carbon stock in the previous year. The total carbon sequestration
resulting from the project scenario on Component A land over a five-year period was calculated to
be 28,745 t C (=105,398 t CO2).

As discussed above, the developers determined that the current carbon stocks on 5,504 ha of
Component A land total 1,568,907 t C. Under the project scenario, these carbon stocks were expected
to remain constant over a five-year period. Therefore, zero carbon emissions/sequestration were
projected to occur on Component A land under the project. However, the developers acknowledged that
some growth increment was likely to occur on Component A land during the five-year period, and that
some sustainable timber harvesting could occur on this land as well. The developers planned to
account for these impacts by monitoring the changes in carbon stocks on Component A land on a
regular basis.

Description of Calculation Methodology for the Actual Project

For the first two years of the project (1995 and 1996), the project developers reported that zero
deforestation had occurred on Component A land. Therefore, carbon stocks on Component A land
remained unchanged and zero carbon emissions or sequestration were reported for those years.
(Because the carbon stock survey was conducted from February 1996 to May 1997, it was assumed that
any incremental biomass growth, and the associated increase in carbon stocks, on Component A land
during the first two years of the project had already been accounted for in the stock survey.)

GHG Emission/Sequestration Calculation Methodology

Site number

2 of 2

Project sector

Land-use change and forestry

Description of Calculation Methodology for the Reference Scenario

In the proposal, Component B of the project was projected to involve the implementation of a
sustainable forestry management regime on 50,543 ha of forest area, including the 6,014 ha of land
purchased under Component A of the project. In order to simplify overall carbon benefits
calculations, carbon benefits associated with both the purchase of the 6,014 ha parcel of land, and
the implementation of the Component B sustainable forestry management regime on this parcel of
land, were calculated as Component A carbon benefits. Component B carbon benefits were calculated
as the benefits accrued from the implementation of the sustainable forestry management regime on
44,529 ha (= 50,543 ha - 6,014 ha) of land.

The proposal estimated that the initial carbon stock on the area under Component B was 4,191,708 t
C. Without the project, the current carbon stock was anticipated to remain constant, a conservative
assumption. Therefore, zero carbon emissions or sequestration were anticipated to occur under the
reference scenario.

Description of Calculation Methodology for the Project Scenario

The proposal estimated that over the course of the project, biomass carbon stock would increase
from 4,199,218 t C to 4,741,032 t C, leading to a total stock increase of 541,814 t C. These
estimated carbon stock increases were described as conservative and were based on average annual
biomass accumulation rates, analysis of the impacts of sustainable harvesting and low-impact
logging approaches within the region (e.g., strip-cutting, heavy selective thinning, and block
cutting), and analysis of fire protection practices developed and tested on the southern coastal
plains of Belize. Thus, on average, the carbon stock was expected to increase by 13,545 t C/yr (=
541,814 t C/40 years). Average annual carbon sequestration in the project scenario was calculated
by subtracting the carbon stock in the year considered from the carbon stock in the previous year,
and averaged 13,545 t C/yr (=49,666 t CO2/yr). Although the manufacture of durable wood
products was included as part of the sustainable harvesting activities under Components A and B,
the associated carbon benefits were not included in the GHG benefit estimation process in the
proposal. Therefore, the GHG benefits resulting from the project were underestimated.

The project developers planned to revised the project scenario based on the results of a
site-specific biomass stock survey and experiments involving tree regeneration, sustainable
harvesting, and reduced impact logging. These activities have not yet been concluded, and no
additional information is available on the revised project scenario. Therefore, the emissions
estimates from the proposal are presented in the following tables.

Description of Calculation Methodology for the Actual Project

The biomass stock survey and experiments on tree regeneration, sustainable harvesting, and reduced
impact logging have not yet been completed. The project developers determined that the destruction
of biomass and its subsequent regrowth as a result of the experiments were not significant sources
of net carbon emissions or sequestration. No large-scale harvesting operations were undertaken in
the first two years of the project. Therefore, the project developers reported zero carbon
emissions or sequestration during the first two years of the project.

3. GHG emission/sequestration data

(a) Reporting of GHG emissions/sequestration

(b) Additional information on GHG emissions/sequestration

Indirect or Secondary GHG Impacts (Positive and Negative)

By maximizing timber values and implementing sustainable forest uses, the project reduces the
threat of leakage by providing surrounding communities with the economic incentive to reverse
current land-use trends and to maintain forest cover. A detailed assessment of the impacts of
Components A and B on the surrounding area will be conducted as information is collected from
periodic monitoring.

In the initial assessment of Component A land conducted by the project developers, the following
were identified as potential indirect or secondary GHG impacts: reinvestment of funds obtained by
the seller of the project land in activities that generate GHGs, and emissions from three diesel
vehicles and other equipment used for patrols, communications, and research purposes. In the former
case, the developers found that the seller of the project land had not invested funds generated by
the sale in any activities that were unplanned prior to the sale, or in any activities that produce
significant GHG emissions. In the latter case, the project developers determined that the vehicular
impacts under the project would be equivalent to or less than those that would have occurred if the
land had been converted to agriculture. Emissions generated by the additional equipment were
determined to be insignificant. The measure of significance is 5,000 t C/yr (equivalent to 20% of
the carbon benefit of approximately 1 million t C to be generated by Component A).

The project will attempt to demonstrate economically viable sustainable land uses that retain the
forest cover. In doing so the project hopes to generate revenue to support management of the area.
Once a sustainable forestry management regime is established, the project aims to promote improved
forest management within the project "zone of influence," which includes approximately
600,000 ha of forest land surrounding the Rio Bravo Conservation Area.

Factors That Could Cause the Future Loss or Reversal of GHG Benefits

Natural disasters, particularly fire and hurricanes, could cause the future loss of GHG benefits.
The use of silviculture techniques (e.g., patch cuts for gap generation) that are required to
promote the generation of certain timber species (e.g., mahogany) could affect the timing of
project benefits, delaying the realization of these benefits until after the ending date of the
project.

Strategy for Reducing the Risk of Future Loss or Reversal of GHG Benefits

The project will undertake multiple measures to ensure long-term protection of standing biomass in
the project area. The project area is included in the Resource Protection Programme for the entire
RBCMA. This broader program includes the following elements: maintenance of a ranger force,
demarcation of the area and diffusion of the rules applicable to that area, displacement of illicit
activity by strategic positioning of other activities (e.g., research, tourism, revenue-earning
actions), maintenance of a public awareness program, and creation of entrepreneurial and employment
opportunities in local communities. The project developers have implemented a Fire Management
Programme to develop effective fire fighting capability and to research the use of fire as a
management tool. The project developers have also developed a contingency plan for implementation
in the event of a hurricane. This plan includes the recovery and use of valuable fallen timber
trees.

F. Funding of the AIJ project

1. Identification of funding sources

(a) Funding sources for project development

Funding Source

Country ofFunding Source

Amount($US)

Percentof TotalFunding(%)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

U.S.A.

The Nature Conservancy

U.S.A.

Programme for Belize

Belize

Total

NA

100

(b) Funding sources for project implementation

Funding Source

Country ofFunding Source

Amount

($US)

Percentof TotalFunding(%)

Is This Funding Assured? (Y/N)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

U.S.A.

520,000

20

Y

Detroit Edison Electric

U.S.A.

520,000

20

Y

Cinergy

U.S.A.

520,000

20

Y

Pacificorp

U.S.A.

520,000

20

Y

Utilitree

U.S.A.

520,000

20

Y

Total

2,600,000

100

2. Assessment of additional funding needs

Current or Planned Activities to Obtain Additional Funding

All required project funding has been secured, and is assured over the ten-year investment period,
after which the projects are anticipated to become self-sustaining. However, according to the
project developers, this does not preclude additional financial contributions by existing or future
financial partners for further project development.

G. Contribution to capacity building and technology transfer

Contribution to Capacity Building and Technology Transfer

This project supports the institutional development of a Belizean non-governmental organization.
Emphasis is placed on developing PfB's capability to implement all aspects of the project. This
project also directly addresses the issue of developing innovative financing mechanisms for
conservation management in Belize.

If the model developed in the RBCMA Pilot Project proves successful, the participants plan to
extend the project beyond the current project boundaries. In his letter to the U.S. Department of
State communicating the Belizean Government's acceptance of the project, the Foreign Minister
stated, "It is, indeed, our hope that the project would serve as a model to be applied
elsewhere."

Due to the identification of anomalies between the areas on land titles and the actual ground
areas, a ground survey and GIS analysis were conducted to verify the project area. The project area
was modified from 50,500 ha to 52,008 ha. A Fire Management Plan has been developed.

A baseline carbon stock assessment of Component A land and of non-project land used to represent
the reference case was conducted between February 1996 and May 1997. A stock survey was begun on
Component B land in 1997. On Component B land, patch-cut experiments have been conducted to test
methods of promoting mahogany regeneration and experiments have also been conducted to assess
different methods of reduced impact logging.

In 1996, the developers produced a public-service video on the project that was broadcast on local
television as part of the PfB educational outreach efforts.

In 1996, Utilitree joined the project as a finance provider, and acquired 50% of the shares held by
WEPCO. All finance providers hold an equal share of the offsets.